Bush’s “dirty war” in Iraq has become increasingly violent and confused. The neocon trust in “creative destruction” has succeeded in fragmenting Iraqi society, but the long-term prospects for normalization (or resource extraction) appear bleak. At this point, it seems irrelevant whether the bombing of the Golden-dome Mosque was the work of Sunni extremists or the US intelligence agencies. After all, propaganda may be useful for shaping public opinion but it cannot win wars. And that is the dilemma that Bush now faces...

According to the Muslim calendar, today — February 12 — is the one year anniversary of the bombing of Samarra’s Golden Dome Mosque. The blast is frequently pointed to as the event which transformed the conflict from an armed struggle against foreign occupation into a civil war. This change in the narrative has had some real benefits for the Bush administration by diverting attention from the nonstop fighting between American troops and the Sunni-led resistance.

The notion that Iraq is in the throes of civil war is rarely challenged in the western media despite the fact that Iraq has no history of the type of sectarian violence which is now ripping the country apart. Veteran journalist Robert Fisk put it this way:

“Iraq is not a sectarian society. People are intermarried. Shiites and Sunnis marry each other…Some from the militias and death squads want a civil war (but) there has never been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke a civil war? The Americans will say that it’s al Qaida or the Sunni insurgents; it is the death squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do; the occupation authorities.”

(Robert Fisk, “Somebody is trying to provoke a Civil War in Iraq”)

So, if we accept the idea that Iraq is in a civil war, aren’t
we ignoring the fact that other forces may be at play just below the
surface?

There’s no doubt that the Bush administration is engaged in a secret
war in Iraq. A great deal has already been written about “the Salvador
Option” which involves the arming and training of death squads for
spreading terror among sympathizers of the resistance. But it is also
likely that many of the bombings we see are, in fact, false flag
operations intended to pit Arab against Arab, and thereby undermine the
greatest threat of all, Iraqi nationalism.

False flag operations are commonplace in foreign occupation. Robert
Fisk cites a few examples in his article, “All This Talk of Civil War,
Now This” (UK Independent, 2006):

“I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among
France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of
the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim
which led to half a million dead souls.

And I'm afraid I also think of Ireland and the bombings in Dublin and
Monaghan in 1974, which, as the years go by, appear to have an ever
closer link, via Protestant "loyalist" paramilitaries, to elements of
British military security.”

It’s impossible to know how much of the violence we see is real and how
much is “black-ops”. Divide and rule is an adage that is as old as war
itself and it is certainly being used in Iraq. In fact, the Bush
administration commissioned the Rand Corporation to draw up a plan
which promotes this very strategy.

The Rand Study was called: “US Strategy in the Muslim World after
9-11”. The document provided “A framework to identify major ideological
orientations within Islam, examines critical cleavages between Muslim
groups.” The goal of the paper was to develop a Shaping Strategy for
pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic
interests. The conclusions of the document are enlightening. Rand
suggests the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to
have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political
and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it
could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create
a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”

Clearly, the administration is following the recommendations Rand study
and has decided elevate the Shiites over the previously dominant Sunnis.

The Bush administration also appears to be applying parts of
another theory which was conjured up by the fiercely nationalistic,
Oded Yinon, in his “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East”. Yinon said:

"It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole
plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided
than they are now, and on the lack of any truly mass movement among
them... Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the
short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of
breaking Iraq up into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon... Syria
will fall apart."

Similar to the Rand study’s recommendations, Yinon’s strategy is to pit
Sunni against Shiite in a way that destroys Arab unity and to leaves
the country weak and fragmented.

Again, there’s nothing new in these theories, but we should realize
that much of the media narrative is crafted in a way that conceals the
truth while promoting the objectives of the US occupation. Beyond the
smokescreen of “civil war” (some of which is real, of course) is a
coherent and carefully articulated plan to quash the resistance and
steal Iraq’s resources. That is the real force which is generating much
of the violence that we see on the ground.

In practical terms, Robert Fisk provides a credible description of how
these black-ops are executed in Iraq. In his article, “Seen through a
Syrian Lens” (UK Independent 4-29-06) the Fisk gives the details of a
conversation he had with a trusted “security source” who told Fisk
that: (the US) “is desperately trying to provoke a civil war around
Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties.”

"I swear to you that we have very good information," Fisk recounts,
"One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a
policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to
drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back
in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told
him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He
waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got
out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew
up."

As incredible as it seems, Fisk assures us that he’s heard the same story many times from different sources.

Again:

"There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too
was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd
- maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening.
Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone
and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you
sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment
there was a big explosion in his car."

Fisk is a hardnosed journalist not easily given to exaggeration. His
account of these incidents simply adds to the growing body of “hearsay”
evidence that US intelligence agencies are directly involved in
inciting sectarian violence. These stories cannot be corroborated, but,
of course, that hasn’t stopped many Iraqis from believing that the US
is behind the daily bombings.

Of course, the question of “who” is funding and facilitating the
terrorism in Iraq presents a serious challenge to an administration
that has based its foreign policy in terms of a war on terror. Public
support would quickly erode if the American people knew that Bush was
directly involved in the same activities as our nemesis, al Qaida.

Traditionally, the United States has no problem supporting Islamic
extremists as long as they serve our overall foreign policy objectives.
The CIA funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the KLA (Kosovo
Liberation Army) in Kosovo, and now provides material support and
weaponry to the MEK Mujahideen-e- Khalq; a Marxist militant group which
is on the State Dept list of terrorist organizations. What matters is
not ideology but whether or not the groups can advance Washington’s
imperial aspirations.

This demonstrates that Bush’s finger-wagging against “ideological
extremism” or “radical Islam” is just more empty rhetoric. Ideology
plays a very small part in the current war. Dick Cheney’s comments in a
speech to the Institute of Petroleum in London in 1999 may shed a bit
of light on this point. He said, “By 2010 we will need on the order of
an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to
come from? ... While many regions of the world offer great oil
opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and
the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

While depletion of oil reserves have accelerated beyond Cheney’s
expectations at the time ;( the world’s 4 largest oil fields are in a
state of irreversible decline) the facts remain the same. The world is
running out of oil and the US intends to deploy its military to seize
vital reserves wherever they may be. The war on terror is simply the
mask that conceals this ongoing struggle.

The Bush administration seems less and less concerned that their
“divide and rule” strategy remains hidden from the public. There’ve
been a number of articles in the mainstream press about Bush’s $86
million gift to Mahmoud Abbas’ to train and equip special shock-troops
to crush the democratically-elected Hamas government. And, there’s been
ample coverage of the CIA’s covert operations in Lebanon that are
directed against Hezbollah. The only conclusion we can draw from this,
is that Bush really doesn’t care anymore if the world knows that the US
is purposely fueling the anarchy which is quickly spreading across the
entire Middle East. (The latest accusation that Iran is supplying
roadside bombs to the Iraqi resistance just shows how sloppy the
administration has gotten in managing its propaganda. Iran, of course,
is Shiite, whereas, the Iraqi resistance is predominantly Sunni. The
likelihood that Iran is providing roadside bombs to the former members
of Saddam’s army is remote to say the least.)

Bush’s “dirty war” in Iraq has become increasingly violent and
confused. The neocon trust in “creative destruction” has succeeded in
fragmenting Iraqi society, but the long-term prospects for
normalization (or resource extraction) appear bleak. At this point, it
seems irrelevant whether the bombing of the Golden-dome Mosque was the
work of Sunni extremists or the US intelligence agencies. After all,
propaganda may be useful for shaping public opinion but it cannot win
wars. And that is the dilemma that Bush now faces.

It has been exactly one year since the Askirya Mosque was flattened.
Most Americans now believe that we are mired in an "unwinnable" war.
Public support is eroding, the violence is escalating, the
administration is drifting sideways, and the end is nowhere in sight.
The inability of the administration to think politically or change
course has thrust America to the brink of its worst defeat in history.

More from this author:

The Breaking Point (8797 Hits)It was another bad week in Iraq. While
bodies were piling up in the Baghdad morgue and the militia
fighting steadily intensified, the Bush...

A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? (9665 Hits)When Hillary Clinton said that her husband
Bill was the target of “a vast right-wing conspiracy”, her
critics just laughed at her. No...

Barking Mad (18279 Hits)
It’s not a comforting thought, but it’s the truth.
As the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate and the feckless
congress concedes more...

Sad but true
The way of imperialism hasn't changed in centuries. The fact is that the US at best wants control of Iraqi resources; at worst, wants to ensure no one else gets control.

As for Fisk, he would rarely let the truth get in the way of a good story. He is great at creating anecdotal bits of hearsay to justify his position or argument. He is a very unreliable source, but a good read.

No sectarian violence in Iraq,it is US,British death squads created by Bush Administration
Do you remember Iraqi police capturing british special forces soldiers with fuses,detonators and bombs dressed as Iraqis?British forces broke down the walls of abu-gharib prison with tanks to release them,so they cannot be introgated.British did not want Iraqis to find out the truth about deadly bombings of civilians by US,British and Australian special forces. Do you remember CIA bankrolling italian mob to kill italian intellectuals to stop that country becoming what communist?or was it to stop the march of democracy? Do you remember school of americas training latinos to kill their own people under negroponte to keep the dictators in power? Do you remember our(US) marines kidnapping Haiti's elected president Aristide and support for botched kidnapping of elected president of Venzuela Hugo Chavez. It is time to get rid of thief of US presidency and supporter of dictators in the world like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak,Pakistan's Pervaz Musharraf,Saudi King,Kuwaiti Amir,Jordanian king and Iraqi puppet government elected with voting fraud and consisting of Iraqis who really did not live in Iraq for more than 11 eleven years and whose families still live in Britain or US.

(AP) BAGHDAD, Iraq--US troops in Fallujah today believe they found the command center for an insurgent group led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The raid also uncovered a bomb-making workshop where a SUV registered in Texas looked like it was being converted into a car bomb.

Details come from a CNN crew that was embedded with the Army.

The Texas registration sticker was on the truck's window.

The vehicle had no license plate, but some 15 Iraq license plates were inside the SUV.

The SUV was sitting in a warehouse surrounded by several bags of sodium nitrate, which can be used to make explosives."

what was funny about this story was that the original CNN article* that included this bit of info was completely vetted of any mention of this; michelle malkin* and the jawa report* also made mention of this incident back in '04, but only to blame thosedamnmexicans. as if "insurgents" would ship an american SUV all the way around the world only to blow it up in iraq--because we all know the rattling, weazing beaters that are the usual fare in baghdad just won't do!

Black Ops and Blowback
So it's now become "irrelevant whether the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque was the work of Sunni extremists or US intelligence agencies"?

Not if you're a Shiite.

Not if you're an Iraqi nationalist.

And not if you're an American taxpayer who gives a shit about ever regaining institutional control over the testosterone crazed CIA/DIA covert ops guys who are hell bent on taking the gloves off, riding with the bad boys, and commiting premeditated murder (with plausible deniability) on Uncle Sam's black budget unlimited line of credit.

Hell yes it's relevant. For if the cover ever blows off American intelligence involvement, it's going to be Dien Ben Phu time when the sectarian stife temporarily subsides and the masses march together towards the Green Zone.